WI: Axis Force the Soviet Union into Siberia

Delta Force

Banned
I suppose this could be ASB under some circumstances.

I was wondering what the situation would have been like for the surviving remnants of the Soviet Union if the Axis powers had conquered up to the Ural Mountains and the Soviet Far East. Who would control the surviving remnants of the rump Soviet Union? What would the agricultural, industrial, and military situation look like? Could the Soviet remnant beat Germany and Japan in acquiring a nuclear weapon as a last hope for striking back?
 

lionhead

It all depends on what you mean by "remnant" and how you propose Germany goes about doing it. German forces will be stretched beyond reason. There is no logical way for them to succeed in that. They would have had to crush the Red Army so badly there would hardly be any people left to oppose German occupation. That is highly unlikely. There is a real limit to how far an army can stretch and hold.

The Soviet Far East was untakable for the Japanese, they had their hands full on China, a country they could not beat either. If they tried the Soviet Army would have crushed them.

So no, other than ASB i see no way this scenario as plausible.
 

Morraw

edgeworthy said:
I think this does happen in "The Foresight War"

http://www.amazon.com/Foresight-War...=1416652421&sr=1-1&keywords=the+foresight+war
Click to expand...

A lot of different Axis Victory alternate histories take that sort of 'Union of Soviet Siberian Republics' approach to waving off the grossly overpowered Soviets (in terms of manpower that is), simply stating that the government and army simply fell and rolled to an overextended Germany (that could easily be pushed back the more it bleeds and freezes in Russia, IMO). As lionhead put it, 'Germans at the Urals' is simply ASB, or at least an extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely event that would require ASB-levels of luck on the Germans side.
 

Gudestein

Morraw said:
A lot of different Axis Victory alternate histories take that sort of 'Union of Soviet Siberian Republics' approach to waving off the grossly overpowered Soviets (in terms of manpower that is), simply stating that the government and army simply fell and rolled to an overextended Germany (that could easily be pushed back the more it bleeds and freezes in Russia, IMO). As lionhead put it, 'Germans at the Urals' is simply ASB, or at least an extremely, EXTREMELY unlikely event that would require ASB-levels of luck on the Germans side.
Click to expand...

This is a typical kind of a reply that moves away from a specific question. In this question it did happen. Fair enough to discuss how it might potentially have happened, but it did. Assume tactical and strategic blunders, German emphasis on infrastructure recovery, Ukrainian collaboration whatever, but it did happen.
How does what's left of the Soviet Union look like? That's the question
 

Morraw

Gudestein said:
This is a typical kind of a reply that moves away from a specific question. In this question it did happen. Fair enough to discuss how it might potentially have happened, but it did. Assume tactical and strategic blunders, German emphasis on infrastructure recovery, Ukrainian collaboration whatever, but it did happen.
How does what's left of the Soviet Union look like? That's the question
Click to expand...

Alright then.

I would imagine that the rump USSR would be somewhat of a military dictatorship (knowing that Stalin would most likely off himself/be overthrown by the top brass as soon as it's clear the war was lost) with a lot of trouble keeping its remaining citizens under its control. As a result of the loss of most of its western 'breadbasket' regions (i.e. Ukraine), we'll probably be spotting high rates of starvation amongst most peasants and workers, even if the Central Asian SSRs remain conjoined to its now mortally wounded big brother. Coupled with the fact that some terrible winters are on their way, I would eventually liken this new Soviet Union (somewhat ironically) to Franco's Spain; being forced to import goods, grain, and other food, a lot of it going to the military along the highly militarized Ural border with the expanded Third Reich, leading to a similar famine to that which happened in North Korea.

Of course, these events would probably lead to the USSR suffering an 'internal implosion' of some sort, and unless it could solve it's food and infrastructure problem quick, I foresee a few major revolts/uprisings amongst the general population in the years after the defeat (all being violently suppressed by the military government in Omsk / Novosibirsk / Vladivastok / wherever. Eventually, this might lead to an undercurrent of discontent amongst its citizens and a few more military-led coup d'états down the track, which eventually leaves the state as somewhat of a backwater, unless it could stabilise, industrialize (especially if millions of refugees flow from the west following the German takeover), and demilitarize sensibly under the guidance of a strong leader (like what happened with Park Chung Hee in South Korea).
 

thaddeus

Donor
think it would mirror China during the Warlord Era.

a remnant (discredited) government from Moscow would not be able to control the vast area from Urals to the Pacific.

especially if they were trying to conscript the population and use up the resources trying to recapture lost territory?

east-west split with the "Party" in Samara and an authoritarian regime (Zhukov?) further east.
 

ChazMo

thaddeus said:
think it would mirror China during the Warlord Era.

a remnant (discredited) government from Moscow would not be able to control the vast area from Urals to the Pacific.

especially if they were trying to conscript the population and use up the resources trying to recapture lost territory?

east-west split with the "Party" in Samara and an authoritarian regime (Zhukov?) further east.
Click to expand...
Straight the Soviets surrender the west, there's no way of them getting it back, barring the total collapse of German authority in the area (something I don't rule out in the decades after Barbarossa).
 

Morraw

Paul V McNutt said:
The Wallies liberate Eastern Europe and there is no Cold War.
Click to expand...

Really, because I'm pretty sure Russians (if they were liberated from Germany by the Wallies (an unlikely event)) would be clambering pretty hard to reunited with their brethren to the east of the Urals (unless the Wallies believed the USSR was in no right spot to hold sway over all Russians and formed a new republican government in Moscow as a counter to the Soviets).
 

Mr.Progressive

Banned
Have the Germans do better and take Moscow, Stalingrad, and Leningrad

Stalin is killed in a coup or in the Battle of Moscow, and the new government agrees to surrender to the A-A Line

Maybe even the Ural Mountains, but that's pushing it

Maybe the Germans invaded from Turkey as well, cutting off the Soviets oil supply early on

And have Japan stay on China coast, and invade the Far-East. This could push the soviets to a peace agreement

And you kinda need a peace on the Western front
 

ivanotter

With the Nazi government in place, I doubt it would have been possible. AH is still within the realm of realities, not ASB after all.

There would simply not have been enough German troops to occupy that big chunk of land unless the Russian population participated.

That is probably the crux of it.

Germany occupation against the general will of the people would not succeed. Violence and such measures would not produce.

So, the question would be: Under which circumstances would the Russian population through European Russia participate in a regime change? lead by Germany?

Ivan
 

sloreck

Well if the UK agrees to a soft armistice (Dunkirk goes bad, Churchill out, Halifax or similar in) and maybe DeGaulle does not get out of France to become a rallying point for Free French. Absent the UK in the war no materiel from the UK for Russia and certainly none from the USA that is not paid for in cash (hard currency or gold) definitely no LL.

If Germany can concentrate most forces on the USSR, and maybe have better success with "extra" forces (Hungarians, Italians, Blue Division, foreign SS) which can be used in other than front line roles, and the USSR is not getting material help then the USSR "losing" is not ASB. Especially if Nazis co-opt some locals and only squeeze them later. Urals may be too far, but the breadbaskets, oil fields, and other resource areas will be doable.

I'm not sure how a rump USSR could hold on to the "stans", many had been in Russian hands 100 years plus or minus as of 1941, and ethnic Russian populations were even lower than they are today.
 
Hashoosh

Hashoosh

If you have the USSR under someone other than Stalin since the 1920s, it's entirely possible that it could collapse in the face of a German invasion. The industrialization of Russia would certainly be affected, as would the political unity of the country that wasn't cowed by a batshit crazy purging megalomaniac. You could even have the USSR not survive until 1941 if it had the wrong leadership. Hell, it might turn into something analogous to China of the era.

Unless the PoD is for after June 22 '41?
 
machine3589

machine3589

There is a chance that Russians and other untermenschen who are not killed or made a part of the Nazis envisioned latifundia slave caste would try to escape the various Reichskommisariats that would be made out of various parts of European USSR. If the flood of refugees is large enough, the rump USSR might get to keep the Stan's by settling them there - and let's be honest; Central Asia would be about the only place anyone would really want to settle in this rump USSR. Siberia, Yakutsk, Irkutsk and Kamchatka aren't exactly prime living space (pun not intended).

The Nazis would actually love that scenario in a way. From their POW, you'd have the barbaric Asiatic hordes that are the Slavs returning to their ancestral Asian homelands again...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top